|
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] Xen storage, Server with iSCSI or dedicated SAN?
thank you all. This could solve also the export/import iSCSI on same
host issue, and avoid me mixed environments (on the host exporting iSCSI).
Were can I found a comparison between AoE / FC / iSCSI without starting
a flame on AoE vs. iSCSI? ... well a comparison more recent than past
discussion available on xen-users list, e.g., at:
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2007-07/msg00121.html
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2006-06/msg00285.html
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2006-05/msg00670.html
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2006-05/msg00323.html
or external, like:
http://storagearchitect.blogspot.com/2007/04/aoefcoeiscsi.html
It would be a good idea to have a FAQ, a sort of "product matrix" where
XEN products are associated with different storage technologies, or, I
see it would be easier, a collection of "Use cases" where one can
compare its own scenario with other's scenarios.
Well, it could be misleading for a detailed scenario, but useful to take
first directions, to find a place where XEN guys officially say
something like "if you have from 1 to N VMs you need X core, Y gigs RAM
and at least this kind of storage....where if you have more than N you
should go for..." or, maybe "...the required disk bandwidth for Z XEN
VMs working at, let say, 50% of load (consider the most common, LAMP
servers) on a single host is.... "...
how can I tell without knowing in details XEN performances if a storage
solution vs another one will be scalable enough?
hard to say....
thank you anyway!
Ivan
Tom Mornini wrote:
I'd suggesting looking into Coraid's AoE products.
I'm nothing more than a very satisfied user of their products.
But then that's what it's all about, right? :-)
-- -- Tom Mornini, CTO
-- Engine Yard, Ruby on Rails Hosting
-- Support, Scalability, Reliability
-- (866) 518-YARD (9273) x201
On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Ivan Porro wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to configuring a setup where I will have 1 DELL PE1950 with
2 QC Xeon 5335, 8GB ram and a HP DL380G3 with 2 Xeon 3GHz and 2GB ram
and Xen OSS or XenExpress v4, hosting RHEL4 and Windows VMs.
The problem is on the storage side. Since I'm really low on budget,
I've to skip fiber channel and go for one of this two reasonable iSCSI
options:
1)
SAN solution: with a DELL/EMC2 AX150 iSCSI, single controller
2)
NAS solution: another server, a PE2950 configured with 2 QC Xeon
5320, 8GB ram and Xeon OSS or XenExpress v4 again, acting as a iSCSI
target for himself and the other server. It will host also a LTO2
backup library, probably DELL PV124T
What are the real performance benefits of the SAN in this case? The
SAN was intended to be not entirely dedicated to XEN. If I go for a
server based SAN, it will (directly or via a VM) provide storage via
NFS/SAMBA to other hosts
Well, of course, you may have also option (3) and (4)... that probably
I missed... any help is appreciated
thank you in advance
ivan
--http://www.bio.dist.unige.it
voice: +39 010 353 2789
fax: +39 010 353 2948
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
--
http://www.bio.dist.unige.it
voice: +39 010 353 2789
fax: +39 010 353 2948
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
Home